Police shoot man with stun gun to stop him from saving step son in burning house

[Esmeralda]

Many of us are moderates or further to the right.

Pauli007001 is simply an anarchist, with no consideration for anyone else but himself.

He doesn't have enough intelligence to be an anarchist.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, you're lying...again and still.

Show me then, where on this thread have you done anything but defend the actions of this pig?

Or will you just fess up your vile, lying, liberal, Obamacult ways!!
Or you could send me some private messages threatening to ban me.

Sorry, child, the burden of proof is on YOU: show where I HAVE defended the actions of the police officer in question!

(Of course, we both know you will not.)

 

[Ernie S.]

Why did the firemen take their jobs if they were unwilling to try to save a 3 year old?

They didn't sign up to commit suicide. My son is a firefighter and I was back many years ago. It's a dangerous job and is sucks to lose anyone, especially a kid in a fire, but a dead fireman today is of no use to anyone tomorrow.

This is the Hollywood World! If a fireman can rush into flames in the movies, they can certainly do it for the housefire down the street. This is the result of the blurring between fantasy and reality. It looks so real, it could happen. Therefore it should happen. There is no doubt that the poor man in his pajamas thought that he could dash in and heroically stride out with the babe in arms, only having his hair artfully singed. What would happen is that the man would be screaming as he was burned alive and everyone would be wondering why the fire department didn't run in and save HIM.

No, it's certainly not Hollywood. Years ago, I tried to get to a little girl in a fully involved house. I had boots, helmet, turnout coat and self contained breathing apparatus. I got 4 or 5 feet in through a back door and the next thing I know, I was 30 feet from the building laying in a snow drift. Something, not quite sure what, blew up. I was OK, but if I hadn't been blown back out through the door, I wouldn't have made it either.

I was lucky enough to be able to save others after that hellacious day.

 

[Ernie S.]

So if they weren't duty bound to Dave the child why stop the father if they wouldn't be duty bound to save him in the same building?

They had lost one life that day. Is it OK with you to lose another?

 

[Ernie S.]

Why did the firemen take their jobs if they were unwilling to try to save a 3 year old?

They didn't sign up to commit suicide. My son is a firefighter and I was back many years ago. It's a dangerous job and is sucks to lose anyone, especially a kid in a fire, but a dead fireman today is of no use to anyone tomorrow.

So if the fire fighter chooses not to that's fine.
But why stop the father from trying to save his kids?
He has that right, or is that selfish?

Did the father have a wife? Other children? what was the point in allowing him to leave a widow and orphans?

 

[Ernie S.]

They didn't sign up to commit suicide. My son is a firefighter and I was back many years ago. It's a dangerous job and is sucks to lose anyone, especially a kid in a fire, but a dead fireman today is of no use to anyone tomorrow.

Exactly.

Why taze the father?

To save his life!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if they weren't duty bound to Dave the child why stop the father if they wouldn't be duty bound to save him in the same building?

The child was already in the building. The authorities had an affirmative duty to keep anyone from entering the building after it was engulfed in flames. It is nonsense to think that the police or fire department would be prohibited from preventing someone from entering the building and at the same time be obligated to run in and save them once they were in the building.

The law is designed, as much as possible, to help people not be foolish. This necessarily results in a certain loss of freedom. There is no right to walk across the freeway for instance. There is no right to enter burning buildings, there is no right to pretend you are spiderman and climb along the outside of sky scrapers. Most people do not act foolishly and never notice the loss of these "freedoms".

Where the **** do you get this "affirmative duty" bullcrap from? Nothing in the law requires police to stop people from entering burning houses, they just have an irrepressible need to order people around in order to prove they are smart.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pauli007001 wrote that "Jake stated that I had a selfish or self centered world view."

Yup, Pauli is willing to put his own selfish needs in front of the safety of others. If Pauli ran into the building, the fire fighters would have to follow him in.

Pauli, my buddy, you are not the center of the world.

There were no firefighters there when the man was Tazed. Even if there were, nothing anywhere obligates them to enter a burning building just because someone is inside. In fact, the safety rules they operate under require them to asses the danger to themselves before they enter a building, which is why they did not go in even though they knew there was a child inside the building.

Not only does that make the desire of the father to enter the house to save his son unselfish, it makes you wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The cop had the legal authority since it was the cop's job to secure the scene and make sure no one got hurt. It wouldn't bother me if people were allowed to be really stupid and get themselves killed, but the surviving family members have a habit of suing the police, fire department and city for allowing people to be really stupid.

It was not his job to secure the scene.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pauli rails on with "Fire fighters are not obliged to enter a burning building. I am constitutionally allowed to go into my own home."

Fire fighters are required to protect you, which you have no right to waive.

No, you are not constitutionally entitled to endanger others and yourself, in or out of your home.

You are not the center of the world.

That was funny, thanks for the laugh

Tell you what Jake, show me which law requires firefoghted to protect me, and then show me which law makes it impossible for me to refuse that protection. Keep in mind that, even if I am having a heart attack in a fire station, I can legally refuse treatment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They didn't sign up to commit suicide. My son is a firefighter and I was back many years ago. It's a dangerous job and is sucks to lose anyone, especially a kid in a fire, but a dead fireman today is of no use to anyone tomorrow.

This is the Hollywood World! If a fireman can rush into flames in the movies, they can certainly do it for the housefire down the street. This is the result of the blurring between fantasy and reality. It looks so real, it could happen. Therefore it should happen. There is no doubt that the poor man in his pajamas thought that he could dash in and heroically stride out with the babe in arms, only having his hair artfully singed. What would happen is that the man would be screaming as he was burned alive and everyone would be wondering why the fire department didn't run in and save HIM.

No, it's certainly not Hollywood. Years ago, I tried to get to a little girl in a fully involved house. I had boots, helmet, turnout coat and self contained breathing apparatus. I got 4 or 5 feet in through a back door and the next thing I know, I was 30 feet from the building laying in a snow drift. Something, not quite sure what, blew up. I was OK, but if I hadn't been blown back out through the door, I wouldn't have made it either.

I was lucky enough to be able to save others after that hellacious day.

If it had been a movie you would have got in, saw the danger immediately, found the people you were looking for, shielded them with your body, and got them out afterwards.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are lying again, child.

Or yer hallucinating, not sure which.

 

[Montrovant]

You are lying again, child.

Or yer hallucinating, not sure which.

No , you hurled layer upon layer of ad hominem attacks because?
A/ you disagreed with my opinion.
Or
B/ you agreed with my opinion but like being an abusive little shit.

What is selfish about saving a child's life?

Sorry Pauli, having just reviewed Jarlaxle's posts in this thread (there aren't that many) you appear to be throwing a tantrum about nothing.

His first post said it would have been kinder to let the man go into the burning home. You misunderstood that, seemingly got upset with him about it, and it's just spiraled from there.

You're going to need to show where he said anything you're complaining about if you expect anyone to believe this nonsense.

 

[Montrovant]

No , you hurled layer upon layer of ad hominem attacks because?
A/ you disagreed with my opinion.
Or
B/ you agreed with my opinion but like being an abusive little shit.

What is selfish about saving a child's life?

Sorry Pauli, having just reviewed Jarlaxle's posts in this thread (there aren't that many) you appear to be throwing a tantrum about nothing.

His first post said it would have been kinder to let the man go into the burning home. You misunderstood that, seemingly got upset with him about it, and it's just spiraled from there.

You're going to need to show where he said anything you're complaining about if you expect anyone to believe this nonsense.

So why is it selfish?
He did say that to wish to save your kids in such a situation was selfish.
Why his ad hominem attacks if he agrees?
He attacked for my opinion, therefore he disagrees with my opinion, therefore he supports the pigs actions that I disagreed with.
Simple logic.
That he didn't specifically support it is irrelivant.
He offered approval in his attacks on my disapproval.
Or perhaps he is just a fuckwitted retard with no dick who has to lash out at his betters?

Once again, having read through his posts in this thread, he did not say what you are claiming.

Show the post where he says that, or admit your mistake and move on. This insistence on continuing to argue something that didn't happen is just asinine.

 

[Chuckt]

I would like to try to be friends with everyone and hopefully we could all have a friendly debate but I feel that the topic is taken too personal and I don't appreciate the language being used.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Understandably so, Chuckt.

Pauli007001 misconstrues any post that contradicts his odd predilection about the arrangement of our social and cultural world.

The authorities made a judgment call the which Pauli008001 disagrees and seems to think his "rights" were abused.

 

[freedombecki]

Why taze the father?

To save his life!

And if the tazer killed him ?

Tazers rarely kill anyone. Give it up, Pauli. Right was done. The guy now doesn't have a funeral leaving a wife and other kids without a husband and father.

It's a blessing, not a curse.

 

[Noomi]

From what I read in the article, a trained fighter determined it was unsafe. He probably saved this man's life and spared the family losing two people.

That sounds fair enough, but I feel for the poor bastard who desperately wanted to save his son.

 

[Jarlaxle]

To save his life!

And if the tazer killed him ?

Tazers rarely kill anyone. Give it up, Pauli. Right was done. The guy now doesn't have a funeral leaving a wife and other kids without a husband and father.

It's a blessing, not a curse.

Considering that the end result was him watching his son die...no, it wasn't. The kindest possible thing to do would have been to let him go in and let him die.

 

[novasteve]

The worst thing for a parent is to have their children predecessor them. Now we have the state making that a decision, and made by the state